Asia

Kazakhstan's political stability

Heavy hangs the head

THE man in the photo is immune from prosecution. Special laws protect his property and that of his family. In his country, Kazakhstan, it is illegal to insult the man or to deface his image. Nursultan Nazarbayev is, according to the constitution, not only the president but also the “Leader of the Nation” and he can stand for re-election as long as he lives. Since there’s never been any serious challenge, many expect Mr Nazarbayev, a 73-year-old former steelworker, to stay in office until he perishes from this earth (he is still mortal, last we checked).

The president is genuinely popular, winning credit for the political stability and rising standard of living in his oil-rich nation. A generous visitor might suppose that is why his photo appears on billboards all over the place, strongman-style. With more than two decades at the helm, Mr Nazarbayev has not built a system based on rule of law; instead he oversees a patronage network in which he stands as the final arbiter. It’s not just that Kazakhstan has never held a free and fair election. There are no institutions to manage a transition, which makes it likely that the country’s next leadership will be determined by struggles within the power elite—if that is not happening already, behind-the-scenes.

“Succession will undoubtedly be a deeply uncomfortable event,” the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think-tank, explains in a report it issued this week. “In a post-Nazarbayev era the system will likely be harnessed by an individual or group who will need to tighten control in order to consolidate their position.”

There are plenty of reasons to believe that Kazakhstan’s authorities are not up to the job of managing a wide-ranging crisis.

In late 2011, a long-simmering strike in the western town of Zhanaozen, where oil workers were demanding higher wages, boiled over. Video footage showed police shooting unarmed protesters in the back as they fled. At least 15 people died, all of them civilians.

Though there were brief moments of contrition on the part of senior officials, the Zhanaozen events were papered over, not studied. They unleashed a wave of persecution that continues to jail opposition leaders under implausible charges of “inciting social discord” and to silence independent media. In September 2013 the last opposition leader anyone took seriously threw in the towel.

Zhanaozen also showed that the profits from Kazakhstan’s immense oil and mineral riches are not trickling down. There is great wealth, but it is concentrated in two cities, Almaty and Astana, where restaurants compete in price (not quality) with those in the most expensive cities in the world. Yet in the potholed villages scattered across the rest of this vast country, the world’s ninth-largest by land area, basic infrastructure is crumbling. Even the oil-rich areas lack regular supplies of clean water and electricity.

“Many rural residents learn only from state television that they live in a prosperous energy-rich country,” ICG says. “The poorer strata of society, if politically mobilised, pose a potential headache for whoever follows Nazarbayev.”

There are signs that some mobilisation is already happening, under the banner of Islam. Home-grown terrorism is perhaps the most mysterious and worrying challenge to Kazakhstan’s security. Dozens died in unexplained bombings and attacks across the country in 2011. The suspects in anti-terrorism operations tend to get killed, ensuring a dearth of information, or else they are shut away after secret trials. There is little evidence of reflection over the causes of disaffection. “The expert and political community in Kazakhstan is almost unanimous about the main reason for the existence and spread of religious radicalisation: the grim socio-economic situation in the regions, especially the west” of the country, says ICG.

Mr Nazarbayev seeks legitimacy abroad, but he shows little interest in reform. After years of lobbying in 2010 Kazakhstan chaired a summit of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But then the government in Astana made a mockery of the organisation, making it plain that it had no interest in adopting the values it theoretically defended as a member of the OSCE.

Two months after hosting an OSCE summit, the president called early presidential elections, catching his opponents off guard. Mr Nazarbayev won a head-spinning 95.5% in a vote that the OSCE’s monitors called “non-competitive”. One of the candidates who was supposed to be an opponent of Mr Nazarbayev let on that even he had voted for the incumbent.

If reform is to come to Kazakhstan, it is not likely to be driven by poverty or the spectre of terror or even unabashed authoritarianism. As in neighbouring Russia, which still exerts cultural influence over Central Asia, it is a growing urban middle class and its clamouring for such basic things as guaranteed property rights, that is capable of commanding attention in high places.

The ICG estimates that more than 50% of Kazakhstan’s GDP is controlled by a single sovereign-wealth fund, Samruk-Kazyna, which was once led by Mr Nazarbayev’s son-in-law. There are no doubts the president wields enormous power over the fund. But what happens to this $103 billion piggy-bank when Mr Nazarbayev goes? Without the Leader of the Nation to arbitrate, could it, like the Soviet Union’s prized industrial assets in the early 1990s, enrich a cabal of officials rather than the country itself? Absent any institutions that would outlast Mr Nazarbayev’s rule, that is an open question.

I am an expat living in KZ. I agree with most parts of this article, especially the bit about lack of rule of law (corruption here is obviously taking a life of its own, becoming a sort of a parallel system to the state-run one) and what will happen after Nazarbayev is gone, since he single handedly brought the country to where it is today. I hope he will be succeeded by someone brave enough to tackle reforms but i I honestly think it must be similar to Nazarbayev's tough personality, a moderate dictator. That type of governance is the only conceivable model at the moment, for democracy is a dangerous tool in countries that are not yet ready to absorb it. In my opinion, nations must to be at the right level of education, culture, awareness and state of being in order to be given a voice that can change lives and destinies. Unfortunately the conditions here are not mature enough as yet. Imposed political models of the west are not universally applicable, as recent history has taught us.

I would say that living and working in the country was quit okay when there was many US and UK companies. But now we've got Chinese and same Germany they cut every budget, cut jobs by saying optimization. This kind of companies mostly privet and has not regulated by bill like SOX etc. We cannot compete in business with them so far. So now we're facing dramatically high realistic unemployment rate with so many wealth and a couple million labour force available. Moreover last year we have raised retirement ages both for women and men while Healthcare have been completely destroyed. Taxes and Utility increasing too..

Nazarbayev has ignored the West's demands that he and his people ape them like dumb monkey and focus their time on vague metaphysical "universals rights"; instead he worked to build up his nation and the West hates him for it. Despite the fact Kazakhstan has the highest standard of living in Central Asia and even out performs their faithful lapdogs Georgia and Ukraine, this is not enough. No, in the West's view, Kazakhstan should be like India and allow their nation to fall into chaos and poverty on the grounds of "freedom" and "human rights".
Well, I commend Nazarbayev for his leadership and envy the luck of the Kazaks for having a leader who get thing done and deliver actual results. A nation does not need endless b.s. discussion about vague metaphysical "right", but concrete result in delivering the material benefits of modern life; and Nazarbayev has done that, so despite the efforts of the West to tear him down, he will continue to stand head and shoulder above the West's lapdogs in third world nation who parrot back to them their nonsense about democracy and "human rights".

Don't ask you to explain because your argument is WRONG; Malaysia is the outlier, only authoritarian states, the Arab Gulf monarchies being the best example, have been able to turn oil wealth into high average living standards. Democracy, even of the pretend kind, ensure the oil wealth will be squandered. Nigeria is the normal outcome of "democracy" and oil wealth; as we see in Venezuela, Yeltsein's Russia, Sudan, and Angola. Only Malaysia and Iran (and now Putin's Russia) have been able to use the oil wealth in any reasonable way and that is only because the income generated is only sufficient to cover government expenses, not displace the private sector. Norway, where 65% of exports are petroleum and gas, is the only petro state not follow the tradition path of dependency, but Norway was already developed before they found the oil; if large amounts of oil were found in Hong Kong or Singapore, it would do little to change the political economy of those nations.

Don't ask you to explain because your argument is WRONG; Malaysia is the outlier, only authoritarian states, the Arab Gulf monarchies being the best example, have been able to turn oil wealth into high average living standards. Democracy, even of the pretend kind, ensure the oil wealth will be squandered. Nigeria is the normal outcome of "democracy" and oil wealth; as we see in Venezuela, Yeltsein's Russia, Sudan, and Angola. Only Malaysia and Iran (and now Putin's Russia) have been able to use the oil wealth in any reasonable way and that is only because the income generated is only sufficient to cover government expenses, not displace the private sector. Norway, where 65% of exports are petroleum and gas, is the only petro state not follow the tradition path of dependency, but Norway was already developed before they found the oil; if large amounts of oil were found in Hong Kong or Singapore, it would do little to change the political economy of those nations.